ALLEGED DEFALCATIONS.

Auckland Star, Volume XXIII, Issue 18, 22 January 1892, Page 4

ALLEGED DEFALCATIONS.

ACCUSED COMMITTED FOR TRIAL,

OTHER CHARGES PENDING.

Alfred Frederick Fitzkoy Etheridge was charged at the Police Court this morning before Messrs J. Savage and J. Walters, justices, with having ontho3lstof March —being Receiver of Land Revenue for the Auckland Provincial District—feloniously embezzled £486 3s, the same being monies appertaining to Her Majesty the' Queen. Mr C. Buddie appeared on behalf of the prosecution, instructed by the Audit Department. Mr E. Mahony represented the accused.

Charles O'Hara Smith, an Inspector of tlie Audit Department, deponed to having recently audited the books and accounts of the accused, who was Receiver of Land Revenue for the provincial district of Auckland. His duties were to receive all moneys due under the Land Fund, and upon receipt of these moneys to make due entry in cash-book, and pay the amount into the publjo account of the Bank of New Zealand within 24 hours. He -should also issue receipts in triplicate.- 16 was also his duty to $ell timber, land, flax, and other things appertaining to the Crown. In the records of the department witness found an entry dated June 20th, 1891, of the s&le of dry and green timber at Kaihu to one Daniel D. Hayes, the total amount of purchase being £966 33. A deposit of £4SQ had been paid by the purchaser, but there was no entry of the balance having been paid ; according to the book, that amount was still due. On the evening prior to the arrest of the accused, witness questioned him regarding that transaction in the presence of Mr Oreville, of the Audit Department. Accused said be had received an unmarked cheque from Mr Hayes for £486 3s, which he cashed at the Union Bank, put the notes in his pocket, bub upon returning to the office they were mining. Witness stated that amount did not appear as having been poid into the Public Account. Daniel David Hayes, of Kaihu, Whangaroa, deposed that he was a contractor. In June, 1890, he had transactions with the accused. At an auction sale, conducted by Mr Etheridge, witness purchased timber to tho value of £966 33. He paid £480 deposit. W Uness paid the balance of £486 3s by cheque (receipt produced). He (job the receipt from Mr Etheridge, Receiver of Land Revenue.

C. 6. Martelli, teller at the Union Bank of Australia, deposed that on the Slut of March, 1891, the cheque produced by last witneis was cashed. It was endorsed with the usual signature of A. F. Etheridge.

W, J. Munro, clerk in the Lauds Department, gave evidence as to the entry in tho salts book. The entry of the sale to Mr Hayes was in his own handwriting. The signature to the receipt was in accused's writing. This concluded the case for the prosecution. The accused reserved his defence.

The same defendant was also charged with having on the 16th of September embezzled the sum of £10, the moneys of Her Majesty the Queen.

Chartes 0 Hara Smith, audit inspector, produced the auction sale book of tho Department of the Receiver of Land Kevenue. Hβ found entries under date September 16, 1890, recording transaction with Kauri Timber Company. The toral amount of the purchase money entered was £80. That amount was marked ac having been paid. He had not found an entry of £98 paid on this account, bub discovered £88 entered. He could not find the difference, £10, accounted for, as the timber actually realised £98. The £88 was paid Into Recount. By Mr !Thes Was an audio' oi accused's secounta in December, 1890, not by witness. "'iiiiiftSwer' to the Bench ac to how.ftfe irregularities bad been discovered, Mr Smith said that he had discovered gross and glaring irregularities which aroused his suspicion, and caused him to cast about outside. He then got returns of money paid by the Kauri Timber Company, anH upon comparing them with the entries, the discrepancy was discovered. He might state' that no ordinary audit could have found out the fraud, as the books hud been falsified. The defendant being uleo chief clerk in the Crown Lands Department, as well as receiver of land revenues, it enabled him to faleify the basis of the audit. It was only from outside sources that information could be obtained. An examination of the auction book with a magnifying glass had disclosed that underneath the figures in ink were the correct amounts that had been originally written in penci l . \V. J. Monroe, clerk in Crown Lands Office, produced auction gale book, and deposed to entries. E. T. Duffiur, solicitor, deposed that in September, 1890, he purchased three lots of timber on behalf of the Kauri Timber Company, for £98, and paid the full amount to Mr Etheridge. Thomas O'Brien, teller in the Bank of Auetralasfo, produced the cheque for £98, which was cashed on the 17th of September. Prisoner reserved his defence.

ALLEGED LARCENY. A. F. F. Etheridge wa3 further charged with having etolen the sum of £1 14s, the moneys of Her Majesty the Queen, on the 7bh-of November, 1890. John Keith Johnston, accountant in the Survey Department, deposed that Andrew Craig, of VVaipu, had paid £8 for the survey of certain laud. The actual cost left a balance of £1 143 to be refunded. C. O'Harii .Smith deposed that the £1 14s had been withdrawn by cheque from the deposit account. The cheque was signed by Mr Etheridge. There was aho a voucher purppiting to have been fay Mr Craig. .Witness knew Mr Craig, and ho wasl&itfe the handwriting was not his. Andrew Craig, postmaster, Walpu, deposed that he had noljejfjyedj* refund pf m '%"mm #* defendant, Tim repflipt produced' was iipfc hi* iigriature.' .Prisoner reserved his defence.

ALLEGED FORGERY. Defendant was next charged with having forged the name of Andrew Craig to a receipt for £1 14e, with intent to defraud. Andrew Craig deposed that the signature to receipt was not his vi riting. It did not appear to have been an imitation ot bis signature. C. O'Hara Smith said he had compared the signature purporting to bo that of A. Craig with the same name written by defendant in the cash book, and he believed them both to be the same writing. Prisoner reeerved his defence. John Anderson, Inspoctor of Police for the VVaikato district, John K. Johnston, and C. O'Hara Smith, the Audit Inspector (who lind diecoverod the alleged irregularities), also gavo evidence. Tno accused reserved his defence in each case, and was committed for trial at the Supreme Court. Bail \vae not asked for. Other charges are stated to be pending against the accused. Mr O'Hara Smith is stiil continuing hio nxamination of the books kept by the accused, but the evidence ie not yet complete.